Search form

You are here

The Fighter is not a class. It's basically a Commoner Plus. Why do I say this? Just look at the different characterizations of the fighter: best at fighting, wears the best armor and weapons. But these don't really mean anything in the context of an actual game. Everyone fights, even the Wizard. Ray of Frost or Shocking Grasp are not functionally very different from a bow or a sword, and I certainly don't think you can call what the wizard is doing when he uses those spells not "fighting." So given that everyone has baseline combat potential, what does "best at fighting" mean? Exactly nothing.

Wears the best armor and weapons is equally meaningless. It tells you about as much about the Fighter class as "dude who wears a dress and carries a large stick of wood" does about the Wizard, which is - again - exactly nothing. The Rogue can fight effectively using the worst weapons and armor, and the Barbarian can fight effectively using no armor at all. So what's the point, really, of those extra proficiencies? Not a whole lot.

The Fighter is completely hollow. It has no soul, no core, no true expression of who it is and why. Is it a soldier? A pirate? A palace guard? A mafia enforcer? A random goblin in a cave? An orc raider? A human farmer who picks up a scythe? All of the above, and none of the above. Fighter is that blanket category that gets applied to people we can't think of a cool class for, the boring mediocrity that we default to when there's nothing else particularly noteworthy that would justify calling them something else.

No edition has ever fixed this problem. Some have tried to get the fighter into a mechanical niche, but that only goes so far. 3e tried Fighter-only feats, but the core structure of the Fighter was still pretty much just "Commoner, but a little better." 4e had a great mechanical niche for the fighter, it's one of the best classes in the edition with huge depth and an enormous number of possible builds. But none of that gave it a soul, none of it really demonstrated "Wow, being a fighter is awesome, look at me!" Sure, it was potent, effective, and fun to play, but it didn't convey the identity that other classes did. Rather, it just ended up being the class that everybody else who uses weapons took as a multiclass to get behind the mechanical Fighters Only wall to enhance what they were doing already. The addition of Fighter to a character didn't actually develop the character in a new direction, the way an actual new class would, but rather it allowed the first class to simply express itself better. It was representative of the fundamental problem with the fighter: anything it does can be done by someone else, because nothing it does is special.

What do we do about this? I don't know. In a certain sense there is only one way forward: they're not going to pull the Fighter, there has to be some niche for the Boring Guy, and so we continue the goal of making it mechanically interesting hoping that our Frankenstein's monster can be granted a soul if we patch together enough shiny toys. We can arbitrarily and completely nonsensically restrict things to only Fighters, despite the fact that it's easy to argue that other classes could do the same thing. In other words, more of the same.

But I really, really wish there were another way to go. Maybe one of you can suggest one. How about this: what have other games, tabletop or otherwise, done with the rough sketch that is the "Fighter concept" and how did they make it into something compelling?

I've been saying this very thing for years.Every class is a fighter. Every class fights. It's no different than naming a class "adventurer".Most of the things the fighter can do can be done by other classes, and usually done better by them.

"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind."
- H.P. Lovecraft

I agree. Personally I'd like fighters to reflect how hard and difficult their training is. If becoming a fighter is easy and intuitive, then they should be able to get extra skills due to the free time. A bonus background. If being a fighter is hard and fighters are really the best of the best, then they need a massive power boost. Make them truly overpowered in combat. More HP. More damage. Infinite parries.

Oh, I like that, though I'd like either version to be able to contribute out of combat. You could have two skill tracks for the fighter...

Natural Fighter: Your fighting talent comes naturally, which means that while your allies spent their childhood apprenticeships studying arcane lore under a rigorous master, toiling in a church or monastery, or learning the ropes of roguish trickery, you had plenty of free time to learn a different craft. Take a second Background.

Practiced Fighter: Your fighting talent is the result of rigorous training, which required you to be part of a specific school or (para- or quasi-) military order. Choose from the following types of organizations and reap the benefits associated with them. Moreover, your DM's campaign world may have specific organization associated with them, which may offer additional story opportunities, resources, and contacts.

I have always thought of the "Fighter" as a superclass, much like "Mage" is a superclass (comprising wizard, sorcerer, and warlock). There are lots of kinds of fighters -- swashbucklers, archers, heavy infantry, light cavalry, barbarians, etc. Taking it a step further, "Fighter" could also include rogues and "Mage" could include clerics.

What it breaks down to is: what is the primary way the character deals with challenges? If it's primarily "cast a spell" then it's a mage-type. If it's "do something physical" then it's a fighter-type.

Of course, the mages aren't limited to spellcasting, and fighters aren't limited to weaponry -- they both have other skills and talents they can use. But that's how I see the major difference between the superclasses.

Much like wizards should be required to specialize, the same should be for fighters. If classes were designed to include support for all three pillars, we would end up with much richer classes. While I'm not gonna advocate this extreme, Rolemaster had a TON of classes, each with their own nuances that gave them distinction. I know some on the forums would love that approach, while others (like myself) would prefer a build-a-class design model.

I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

Much like wizards should be required to specialize, the same should be for fighters. If classes were designed to include support for all three pillars, we would end up with much richer classes. While I'm not gonna advocate this extreme, Rolemaster had a TON of classes, each with their own nuances that gave them distinction. I know some on the forums would love that approach, while others (like myself) would prefer a build-a-class design model.

Rolemaster is pretty amazing in that regard. I am onboard with build-a-class, too. I support the basic Fighter, equally. There is nothing wrong with the player breathing life into a class without codified options.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Much like wizards should be required to specialize, the same should be for fighters. If classes were designed to include support for all three pillars, we would end up with much richer classes. While I'm not gonna advocate this extreme, Rolemaster had a TON of classes, each with their own nuances that gave them distinction. I know some on the forums would love that approach, while others (like myself) would prefer a build-a-class design model.

Rolemaster is pretty amazing in that regard. I am onboard with build-a-class, too. I support the basic Fighter, equally. There is nothing wrong with the player breathing life into a class without codified options.

No, there's nothing wrong with it, but not putting in enough definition to the Fighter should not be considered acceptable just because some players can fix it later.

I agree. Personally I'd like fighters to reflect how hard and difficult their training is. If becoming a fighter is easy and intuitive, then they should be able to get extra skills due to the free time. A bonus background. If being a fighter is hard and fighters are really the best of the best, then they need a massive power boost. Make them truly overpowered in combat. More HP. More damage. Infinite parries.

Oh, I like that, though I'd like either version to be able to contribute out of combat. You could have two skill tracks for the fighter...

Natural Fighter: Your fighting talent comes naturally, which means you had plenty of free time to learn a different craft. Take a second Background.

Practiced Fighter: Your fighting talent is the result of rigorous training, which required you to be part of a specific school or (para- or quasi-) military order. Choose from the following types of organizations and reap the benefits associated with them. Moreover, your DM's campaign world may have specific organization associated with them, which may offer additional story opportunities, resources, and contacts.

See there is an interesting thought. Include options for where they got their training into the class itself give explanation as to why they have the abilities they have. This is something I could maybe get behind because it doesn't outright say the figter, which can represent the knight or the street thug, has any particular or specific notes about him, just that he has some note of where he learned the things he learned.

That is the main problem I see with trying to give the fighter an identity by the way. The fighter class is left purposefully vague and somewhat flavorless because it needs to cover such a large range of possible character archetypes. I think the fighter class guaranteeing a background (like even if you are playing without backgrounds fighters get a background because that is where they get their flavor from) wouldn't be a bad touch in reality. However in some peoples eyes that does pretty much make backgrounds, and skills, a required portion of the game. Even though at that point it would be 100% the same as listing it as a class feature that they get, you know a variable and selectable background flavor. As would them being guaranteed a specialty but to many people would lose their minds if this was the case.

DemoMonkey had what appears to be a good answer to iving fighter better exploration qualities: let them add an extra skill die whenever making a Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity check. This would probably make fighters the masters of improvised ability checks in exploration, while rogues are the masters of ability checks when using their skill tricks.

The Faction idea above could then be focused on socialization.

Faction: In order to become a fighter, one generally either needs an incredible amount of self-determination and drive, or the assistance of a faction, representing a tutor. Choose from amongst the following Factions:

Self-Reliant: Your supreme self-confidence helps you through many situations. You add an additional skill die to Charisma checks that do not involve deception or stealth.

Shadow League: You were taught by a cabal of warriors who manipulate events from the shadows. Add an additional skill die to Charisma checks involving deception or stealth.

Military Order: You were taught by a strict military order that required stoic self-discipline. Add an additional skill die to any ability checks used to resist temptation, influence, or trickery.

Elite Academy: You were taught by the best of the best and can move effortlessly through their circles. Add an additional skill die to any mental ability check involving the upper class of society.

Guardians of Vigil: You were taught by an elite group dedicated to finding and rooting out threats to civiliation. Add and additional skill die to Intelligence or Wisdom checks involving perception, investigations or discovering duplicity.

Warrior-Scholars: You were taught by a group of martial philosophers who believes a broad education best prepares you for trouble. Add an additional skill die to any mental ability check required to recall or to gather relevant pieces of information.

Street Rat: You were taught the deadly use of weapons by a guild of thugs. Add a skill die to any mental ability check involving interaction with the lower classes.

Caravaner: Your family of merchants saw your talent with weapons and scrounged enough money to get you apprenticed to a variety of merchant caravans. Add a skill die to any mental ability check involving barter or when dealing with the middle class.

I like how 4e describes martial powers: "Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals."

In this sense, the Fighter is special, not just a run o' the mill street brawler. Despite the description though, martial exploits are too easily associated with magic (as "spells for fighters"). In game terms though, exploits and spells are both merely 'powers'; something that makes the classes special, unique from average Joe Wood.

I think power sources are an effective way to bring out the idea that PCs (and the classes they represent) are adventurers, a step above average (that's the default assumption at least). There are other ways and that's something DDN is gonna have to find.

Fighters could be weapons and armors masters, as the best armor is absolutly not always heavy armors, especially when you are on a boat or in a dungeon.

Rogues could be effective without having ever been trained in weapons. Criminal and peasant worlds favors unarmed combat styles and small groups tactics.

Rangers could be more supernaturally oriented, maybe characterized by a powerful wild companion (to also give them a place between druids and barbarians).

But rogues are basically light fighters, weaponmasters military trained to identify and hit weak points, and rangers are another sort of military rogue more adapted to wilderness.So we could say that rogues and rangers are also not classes.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

That is the main problem I see with trying to give the fighter an identity by the way. The fighter class is left purposefully vague and somewhat flavorless because it needs to cover such a large range of possible character archetypes.

I never understood this.

Why is it, in a class-based game, you can have one class that is supposed to represent such a huge range of potential archtypes. When you look at the specificity required to separate a Warlock, a Sorcerer, a Wizard, a Druid, and a Cleric from each other, why would it make sense to combine a Knight, a Street Thug, and an Archer, and a Skirmisher into the same class?

The Fighter should just be removed and replaced by a variety of more interesting classes (now with more soul) that offer the level of specificity that other classes are given.

Fighting styles may grant more things than just a few maneouvers. An aditional skill, an aditional feat, some other class features, like inmunities (fear, trip or something alike) non combat stuff, like strengh-based skill mastery and so on...

To me, the fighter has always been the stereotypical Hero (with a capital H) from the fantasy genre. So translating this into D&D terms, I think the fighter should typically be the one everyone turns to when the fighting starts. No matter what they are facing, the fighter knows just what to do. I guess I'd represent this with monster knowledge and tactical options.In addition, the fighter needs to be hard to take down. This needs to be more than just HP and AC, because as Mand pointed out, other classes can also get good HP and AC. Parry is a great step, but I'd like to see it taken further. The fighter is the guy who is always in the right place at the right time; when the evil wizard casts lightning bolt the fighter has already taken a half step to the left. I'd like Parry to be able to reduce damage from other sources besides melee weapon attacks. Maybe allow it to block any damage but you can only add Martial Dice if it is a melee weapon attack (using a shield also lets you apply your dice against ranged weapon attacks).Combining these two things with the flexibility of the fighter maneuvers and I think you get a much stronger class.

Much like wizards should be required to specialize, the same should be for fighters. If classes were designed to include support for all three pillars, we would end up with much richer classes. While I'm not gonna advocate this extreme, Rolemaster had a TON of classes, each with their own nuances that gave them distinction. I know some on the forums would love that approach, while others (like myself) would prefer a build-a-class design model.

Rolemaster is pretty amazing in that regard. I am onboard with build-a-class, too. I support the basic Fighter, equally. There is nothing wrong with the player breathing life into a class without codified options.

No, there's nothing wrong with it, but not putting in enough definition to the Fighter should not be considered acceptable just because some players can fix it later.

The strength of Vanilla is that it IS Vanilla. There is nothing to fix. It is what it is. The only reason to fix that is to make it acceptable to your own taste buds.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Specialist fighters would be nice to see, but only if the "I hit it" style is kept as an option for those of us who prefer it thematically and mechanically.

Here is reality, read and understand: Rangers aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Fighters aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Casters aren't "god mode" or overpowered, in any edition. The tarrasque isn't broken. And you aren't voicing your opinion by claiming otherwise, you're just being a pain. Now, stop complaining. Color me flattered.

DemoMonkey had what appears to be a good answer to iving fighter better exploration qualities: let them add an extra skill die whenever making a Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity check. This would probably make fighters the masters of improvised ability checks in exploration, while rogues are the masters of ability checks when using their skill tricks.

I like this. Fighter's are the preeminent physical paragon. I wonder, would it be equally as cool to give wizards (or any "pure" caster) a similar feature but with the mental abilities?

I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

DemoMonkey had what appears to be a good answer to iving fighter better exploration qualities: let them add an extra skill die whenever making a Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity check. This would probably make fighters the masters of improvised ability checks in exploration, while rogues are the masters of ability checks when using their skill tricks.

The Faction idea above could then be focused on socialization.

Faction: In order to become a fighter, one generally either needs an incredible amount of self-determination and drive, or the assistance of a faction, representing a tutor. Choose from amongst the following Factions:

Self-Reliant: Your supreme self-confidence helps you through many situations. You add an additional skill die to Charisma checks that do not involve deception or stealth.

Shadow League: You were taught by a cabal of warriors who manipulate events from the shadows. Add an additional skill die to Charisma checks involving deception or stealth.

Military Order: You were taught by a strict military order that required stoic self-discipline. Add an additional skill die to any ability checks used to resist temptation, influence, or trickery.

Elite Academy: You were taught by the best of the best and can move effortlessly through their circles. Add an additional skill die to any mental ability check involving the upper class of society.

Guardians of Vigil: You were taught by an elite group dedicated to finding and rooting out threats to civiliation. Add and additional skill die to Intelligence or Wisdom checks involving perception, investigations or discovering duplicity.

Warrior-Scholars: You were taught by a group of martial philosophers who believes a broad education best prepares you for trouble. Add an additional skill die to any mental ability check required to recall or to gather relevant pieces of information.

Street Rat: You were taught the deadly use of weapons by a guild of thugs. Add a skill die to any mental ability check involving interaction with the lower classes.

Caravaner: Your family of merchants saw your talent with weapons and scrounged enough money to get you apprenticed to a variety of merchant caravans. Add a skill die to any mental ability check involving barter or when dealing with the middle class.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

Specialist fighters would be nice to see, but only if the "I hit it" style is kept as an option for those of us who prefer it thematically and mechanically.

Can you expand upon this more please, because "I hit it" is not enough for a class since you could play that by creating a character and simply not picking a class or you can pick basically any class and then ignore whatever abilities it has and simply attack with a weapon.

When you say you want an "I hit it" style, I think you are asking for more than just that, but I want to know more details about what goes with that. And, I need it in ways that are not also shared by other classes. For example, saying they have a high AC is not enough because Paladins are also heavily armored.

DemoMonkey had what appears to be a good answer to iving fighter better exploration qualities: let them add an extra skill die whenever making a Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity check. This would probably make fighters the masters of improvised ability checks in exploration, while rogues are the masters of ability checks when using their skill tricks.

I like this. Fighter's are the preeminent physical paragon. I wonder, would it be equally as cool to give wizards (or any "pure" caster) a similar feature but with the mental abilities?

That is the main problem I see with trying to give the fighter an identity by the way. The fighter class is left purposefully vague and somewhat flavorless because it needs to cover such a large range of possible character archetypes.

I never understood this.

Why is it, in a class-based game, you can have one class that is supposed to represent such a huge range of potential archtypes. When you look at the specificity required to separate a Warlock, a Sorcerer, a Wizard, a Druid, and a Cleric from each other, why would it make sense to combine a Knight, a Street Thug, and an Archer, and a Skirmisher into the same class?

The Fighter should just be removed and replaced by a variety of more interesting classes (now with more soul) that offer the level of specificity that other classes are given.

That would likely be a good solution...unfortunately it isn't happening. There will be a class called fighter. Now that class will indeed cover archetypes from street fighter, to soldier, to knight (though paladin covers knight far better), and many things in between. The problem arises in the fact that other classes, such as monk, ranger, paladin, barbarian, sword mage, and others cover certain archetypes in a manner far better than the fighter does.

At this point I'd be willing to try out a system where the fighter's maneuver progression (basically all he has that is his own at the moment) was just moved out to these other classes and the fighter itself was non existant. Though each of those things includes some magical ability of some sort. The monk has ki, the paladin will have lay on hands, the barbarian has rage (not as magical in this packet but I'm betting the warden influences will be carried in the rage portion of the class), the sword mage straight up has magic. The only guy that wouldn't have magical ability and would still remain as the totally mundane guy would be the rogue.

Unfortunately and as I said before this will never happen. There will be a fighter class. No speculation needed it will be there. So we should focus on what suggestions to make to make that fighter better.

DemoMonkey had what appears to be a good answer to iving fighter better exploration qualities: let them add an extra skill die whenever making a Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity check. This would probably make fighters the masters of improvised ability checks in exploration, while rogues are the masters of ability checks when using their skill tricks.

I like this. Fighter's are the preeminent physical paragon. I wonder, would it be equally as cool to give wizards (or any "pure" caster) a similar feature but with the mental abilities?

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

Can you expand upon this more please, because "I hit it" is not enough for a class since you could play that by creating a character and simply not picking a class or you can pick basically any class and then ignore whatever abilities it has and simply attack with a weapon.

I don't think I should have to ignore abilities to get the mechanical basis I want out a D&D fighter.

The "I hit it" fighter should be defined as follows:

Has the best chance to hit in melee.
Has the widest array of weapon and armor proficiences available.
Does the most damage in melee.
Has lots of hit points.
Has the ability to spec in a weapon, which no other class gets. This should push their chance to hit and damage even higher.
Has great saves.
Doesn't have to worry about daily or per encounter abilities.
Doesn't have to rely on magic items to be effective, since the above abilities should be enough.

Here is reality, read and understand: Rangers aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Fighters aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Casters aren't "god mode" or overpowered, in any edition. The tarrasque isn't broken. And you aren't voicing your opinion by claiming otherwise, you're just being a pain. Now, stop complaining. Color me flattered.

Not because we don't want to. Not because they don't deserve nice things. But because due to the wretchedly ineffective "identity" we've given the Fighter, they're always going to be in a situation where anything cool for them is cool for everyone.

I agree. Personally I'd like fighters to reflect how hard and difficult their training is. If becoming a fighter is easy and intuitive, then they should be able to get extra skills due to the free time. A bonus background. If being a fighter is hard and fighters are really the best of the best, then they need a massive power boost. Make them truly overpowered in combat. More HP. More damage. Infinite parries.

Make fighters more powerful? More powerful than their 17 minimum, up to 58+ damage every round at level 11? With a great AC and high attack mods? Martial damage already needs a good rethink. The insanity of the consistant damage output at higher levels makes a laughing stock of even the strongest creatures.

Not because we don't want to. Not because they don't deserve nice things. But because due to the wretchedly ineffective "identity" we've given the Fighter, they're always going to be in a situation where anything cool for them is cool for everyone.

Yes, the 'fighter' thing bugs me as well. It's never gonna change, being a sacred cow and all, but for the sake of discussion: We could by using a better term for it, as 'fighter' means everything and nothing; warrior would be a step forward already, or weaponmaster maybe (like the 4E renaming of the PHB fighter as a subclass).

I think the class should represent the archetype of someone who has been effectively trained to fight with martial weapons (and armors) and keeps honing his skills with constant practice and dedication. While a ranger, a barbarian or a rogue may be self-taught in the art of war, this class should be a professional when it comes to it.

Wizards don't need it. They will have rituals like Legend Lore (Int), Locate Object (Wis), and Friends (Cha). Please, can't we just let fighters have a toy of their own?

They would be. Sharing a similar mechanic doesn't take away anything from the fighter. Granted, perhaps the magical classes shouldn't get ALL of the mental abilities, but perhaps they pick their favored ability.

I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

Fighter, Cavalier, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger. These are the only classes that get multiple attacks, not necessarily at the same rate. These classes gain increased critical hit chances, 20 at level 1, 19-20 at level 4, 18-20 at level 8.... These classes are the only ones that can learn combat maneuvers. The only classes that can specialize in weapons or have weapons of choice.

Wizards don't need it. They will have rituals like Legend Lore (Int), Locate Object (Wis), and Friends (Cha). Please, can't we just let fighters have a toy of their own?

They would be. Sharing a similar mechanic doesn't take away anything from the fighter.

It totally takes away form the fioghter. moreover, it accomplishes nothing. Wizards already have an advantage on Intelligence checks because they've probably got the highest Int in the party. Same with clerics and Wisdom and bards and Charisma. They don't need the boost. It adds nothing to the class.

Wizards don't need it. They will have rituals like Legend Lore (Int), Locate Object (Wis), and Friends (Cha). Please, can't we just let fighters have a toy of their own?

They would be. Sharing a similar mechanic doesn't take away anything from the fighter.

It totally takes away form the fioghter. moreover, it accomplishes nothing. Wizards already have an advantage on Intelligence checks because they've probably got the highest Int in the party. Same with clerics and Wisdom and bards and Charisma. They don't need the boost. It adds nothing to the class.

Sadly, its just too darn natural for it to be stuck with one class. How can you deny a Red Robed Wizard and his buddies a Faction?

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

The Fighter is not a class. It's basically a Commoner Plus. Why do I say this? Just look at the different characterizations of the fighter: best at fighting, wears the best armor and weapons. But these don't really mean anything in the context of an actual game. Everyone fights, even the Wizard. Ray of Frost or Shocking Grasp are not functionally very different from a bow or a sword, and I certainly don't think you can call what the wizard is doing when he uses those spells not "fighting." So given that everyone has baseline combat potential, what does "best at fighting" mean? Exactly nothing.

Wotc even lets them shoot frost and grab people with int as a modifier. It’s a superficial definition of class. Few agreed with me that Wizards should have access to combat maneuvers because it supposedly infringes on the fighter when the Wizard already has a bow in a sword.

Wears the best armor and weapons is equally meaningless. It tells you about as much about the Fighter class as "dude who wears a dress and carries a large stick of wood" does about the Wizard, which is - again - exactly nothing. The Rogue can fight effectively using the worst weapons and armor, and the Barbarian can fight effectively using no armor at all. So what's the point, really, of those extra proficiencies? Not a whole lot.

I called for treating armor like utility items instead of career paths attached to dex and to drastically lower the price. This would make the ftr the armor monkey as the rogue is the skill monkey. I’ve also called for weapon proficiencies since they would stand out so much with bounded accuracy.

The Fighter is completely hollow. It has no soul, no core, no true expression of who it is and why. Is it a soldier? A pirate? A palace guard? A mafia enforcer? A random goblin in a cave? An orc raider? A human farmer who picks up a scythe? All of the above, and none of the above. Fighter is that blanket category that gets applied to people we can't think of a cool class for, the boring mediocrity that we default to when there's nothing else particularly noteworthy that would justify calling them something else.

Wow am I on your ignore list? That is exactly what I was talking about with Fire Emblem. Fire Emblem does a much better job of simulating pirates, knights, swordsmen, heroes, dragon knights, fighters, berserkers, or just martial classes in general without maneuvers. Nothing is uniform in fire Emblem. Even at the same level they all have different accuracy, damage, damage reduction, critical defense, critical rate, evading ability, attack speed, and weapon proficiencies.

No edition has ever fixed this problem. Some have tried to get the fighter into a mechanical niche, but that only goes so far. 3e tried Fighter-only feats, but the core structure of the Fighter was still pretty much just "Commoner, but a little better." 4e had a great mechanical niche for the fighter, it's one of the best classes in the edition with huge depth and an enormous number of possible builds. But none of that gave it a soul, none of it really demonstrated "Wow, being a fighter is awesome, look at me!" Sure, it was potent, effective, and fun to play, but it didn't convey the identity that other classes did. Rather, it just ended up being the class that everybody else who uses weapons took as a multiclass to get behind the mechanical Fighters Only wall to enhance what they were doing already.

It wasnt built in it was built on. If it was soulless that was why.

What do we do about this? I don't know. In a certain sense there is only one way forward: they're not going to pull the Fighter, there has to be some niche for the Boring Guy, and so we continue the goal of making it mechanically interesting hoping that our Frankenstein's monster can be granted a soul if we patch together enough shiny toys. We can arbitrarily and completely nonsensically restrict things to only Fighters, despite the fact that it's easy to argue that other classes could do the same thing. In other words, more of the same.

But I really, really wish there were another way to go. Maybe one of you can suggest one. How about this: what have other games, tabletop or otherwise, done with the rough sketch that is the "Fighter concept" and how did they make it into something compelling?

I’m creating a pseudo code example of a 20th level ftr and Monk. Here is a preview of the ftrs. These are two guys that Ed Greenwood called the best swordsmen in the Forgotten Realms. They are based on Vitali Kiltchko and Floyd Mayweather.

TraitsLanky-1 to str and con. Can use non reach weapons at reachJealous MagicPrerec 15 or more in str and dex. Has one chance at disadvantage to attune weapon. If player makes doesn’t not attune a weapon by level 10 can take Tempus TouchTempus TouchMundane weapons have +1 to hit/ damage Celestial properties when attunedRot Talk- Constant insults wear at opponents. Win a cha contest or lose a combat surgeFame LVl 3- +3 to charisma attracts 10 lvls of followersMeasured+5 speed loses all attacks after natural 1

FeatsEfficient Lvl 4- Does not tire from Maneuvers with +50% hp. ManeuversParry Reaction-Able to block on successful attack rollShove Away- If an opponent is within range of a grapple able to tie them up and push them back out of range.Combo Attack- After landing one attack has plus +2 in accuracy and +5 in damage on the second.Bull RushGuarded Retreat –Back away from range with +5 to reaction.SkillsHealer, knowledge of anatomy

Wizards don't need it. They will have rituals like Legend Lore (Int), Locate Object (Wis), and Friends (Cha). Please, can't we just let fighters have a toy of their own?

They would be. Sharing a similar mechanic doesn't take away anything from the fighter. Granted, perhaps the magical classes shouldn't get ALL of the mental abilities, but perhaps they pick their favored ability.